Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
September 3, 2008

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Dana Sande and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Doug Christensen and John Drees. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 6, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of August 6, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented.

Lee announced there was another meeting after the planning and zoning commission meeting scheduled at 7:00 p.m. regarding the landfill issue. She asked that any comments made on the planning issues be kept to a minimum in order to leave time for the room to be changed for the following meeting.


3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES.

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0301 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE SIGN REGULATIONS.

Gengler reviewed the newest ordinance passed out to the commission members at the beginning of the meeting and stated that it had been reviewed by city attorney, Howard Swanson. The chamber of commerce has communicated with businesses on the new sign ordinance and has received input from the businesses. The chamber has offered to set up a meeting between staff, business owners and sign companies within the next week or two to further discuss the ordinance. If the commission approves the ordinance tonight, the revised ordinance and any ordinance revisions suggested at the meeting will be forwarded to the city council on September 15th for their review. Gengler went through each of the changes between the ordinance they received in the packets and the one presented at the meeting. Questions were raised at the subcommittee meeting concerning the minimum hold time or duration that messages must remain on screen. A consensus was reached with the subcommittee and the sign company representatives that two seconds was a reasonable time frame to use for text or messages. Some people interpreted that to mean that anything displayed on the sign must be in place for two seconds. The goal is to eliminate the flashing and blinking. He pointed out that text messages and background graphics may scroll in a consistent and predictable manner. The intent is to define that the messages can scroll as long as the body of the message is shown for a minimum of two second and other activities such as balloons and visual images can still be there.

Hutchison said he had received several phone calls regarding the ordinance. He asked if the sign subcommittee is involved in the ordinance review, should they not review it first and make a recommendation to the planning commission? Also, the chamber of commerce survey on the ordinance has not been completed.

Gengler was asked if planning staff had researched sign regulations from Bismarck and Fargo. He stated staff did a national search and found quite a wide range of ordinances. Some are barely restrictive while others allow no motion at all in their sign ordinance. Some areas actually measure the intensity of lights. Staff chose to eliminate light intensity criteria since it would require someone to stand by a sign and measure the intensity with a machine. A limited text message type sign will be allowed for churches and schools since those establishments are located in the residential areas.

When asked why the sign ordinance was necessary, Gengler explained that the new digital signs could become very obnoxious and distracting. Some of the signs operate so quickly that the message cannot even be read. Instead of saying no to these types of signs, the ordinance was written to create rules for all businesses to follow. The regulations will be the same throughout the city whether on 32nd Avenue South or South Washington Street.

Gengler was asked if the city could enforce the ordinance. He answered it would be enforced just as any other ordinance through the city inspection office. It will be a continual effort to enforce the ordinance just as it is for other areas.

Kreun agreed that approving the ordinance before everyone understood what was happening was not a good idea. At one time there was a moratorium considered for the electronic signs. The city council decided against that but there was some sense of urgency to get the ordinance in place so business owners do not use the excuse that they were grandfathered in and do not have to follow the rules. As a member of the sign subcommittee, he felt the committee should follow the process and bring the ordinance back to the commission next month.

Gengler said there is a retroactive clause in the ordinance. If existing signs have the ability for dimmer control or intensity control, those businesses would have to comply with the ordinance. He did stress that staff is not advocating that existing business signs have to be replaced to fit the ordinance.

Lee asked if the ordinance was tabled, would it still go on to the city council? Gengler replied the ordinance has been advertised and procedurally would go forward to the city council but they usually follow the recommendation of the commission.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Harold Newman, President of Newman Outdoor Advertising, stated he received a copy of the ordinance at 5:30 p.m. before the meeting started and said it was hard to respond to the ordinance. The industry should be informed before it is approved. He talked about the uniqueness of the signs. He said the larger electronic sign located at DeMers Avenue and Washington Street includes 20% of free advertising for various causes around the city (i.e. bridges closing notices, public service notices). Also he noted a picture was taken of a bank robber in Biloxi, MS. That pictures was loaded onto the electronic billboard and the robber was apprehended in less than an hour. He said there had been no talk about the messages that could be put on the billboards. Mr. Newman said they were willing to support the ordinance that was sent in commissioners’ packets, but he does not believe it is right to not allow the use of non-conforming signs. Most on-premise and off-premise signs in Grand Forks are non-conforming.

A member of the audience asked if they could address the commission next month if the item is tabled. Gengler said the process would be repeated in October and questions would be allowed from audience members.

Dr. Hall asked if Newman’s representative was invited to the sign subcommittee meetings. Gengler said the local representative from Newman’s Outdoor Advertising has been a part of all of the meetings. Staff has included the involvement of local sign companies and representatives throughout the process.

There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed.

Gengler said the chamber of commerce will facilitate the meeting and it can be held at city hall, if necessary. The chamber will notify the businesses for the meeting. The city info center can also be utilized to get the word to the public about the meeting.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY MALM TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE UNTIL THE OCTOBER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 18-0224 RELATING TO CHANGES IN THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

Brooks reviewed the ordinance and said no changes had been made since preliminary approval at the August planning and zoning commission meeting. He pointed out that the ordinance amendment reduced the Corridor Overlay District from 600 to 400 feet from the right-of-way; provisions have been added for design themes, if requested; provisions have been made to allow a mix of materials to over 50% instead of just one material; removal of the 20% glass requirement for industrial buildings; the drainage pipe requirement has been removed; and separate building setback requirements are now provided for commercial and industrial buildings.

Robert Drees asked if the change from 600 feet to 400 feet would help Tony Kobetsky, owner of the MK business. Brooks replied the business was at zero feet and they are not exempt from the Corridor Overlay District. The one change that would benefit him is the removal of the 20% glass requirement.

Kreun said the ordinance is the result of meetings between the Land Development Code Revision Committee and business owners’ concerns. The ordinances presented initially are not always perfect. They are reviewed and necessary changes are made. The ordinance does allow for some control and everyone will not always like the rules.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

Matejcek said he wanted to see the distance of the district reduced from 600 feet to 300 feet but said 400 feet was a good compromise.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF LANDMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF STRATA FOURTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2400 BLOCK OF NORTH 48TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the plan and said the city right-of-way has been platted as well. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

There were no questions from the commission. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Show access control along 27th Avenue North and North 48th Street.
2. Add temporary turnaround area with note to revert back to owner at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF THE RIVER FORKS DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE FROM THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO).

Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), stated that in 2006, the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks asked the MPO to update the downtown plans for both cities. In 2007, the priority was to continue updating the land development code ordinance. In 2008, they started the update of the downtown areas of both cities. The MPO hired S.E.H. as the consultant as well as subcontractors, Camiros, Maxfield Research and EAPC. S.E.H is the lead consultant on the urban design and land use. As part of that, a market analysis of the cities’ downtown area was prepared by Maxwell Research. The other two parts of the study are transportation and organization. S.E.H. will do the transportation part while Camiros will prepare a recommendation for the organization of the downtown properties, business owners and citizens into a more unified group. The draft report by Maxwell Research included the market segments of retail, office businesses and housing (rental/ownership and general occupancy/senior housing). He explained the market draw areas, growth trends, age distribution, household type, housing markets (rental and for sale), consumer expenditures, retail sales growth, retail conditions, downtown interview summary (strengths and weaknesses), employment growth, number of employees/office space, office market conditions, demand summary, general recommendations and suggested retail uses. Haugen presented the preliminary priority projects map and asked the commission members to review it and offer any feedback to the MPO. He explained there are two committees associated with the process and Whitcomb is the representative from the planning commission.

Whitcomb asked if representatives from the greenway and the park district would be included on the committee. Haugen replied that the higher-level department heads are currently involved in the process but now they are asking Kim Greendahl, Greenway Specialist, to be part of the process. There is a park representative from East Grand Fork on the committee as well as a DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) representative.

Hagness said he has heard from residents in the downtown about the lack of a grocery store in the downtown area. The size recommended is excessive for the downtown but a grocery/drugstore should be considered. He asked if consideration had been given for this type of business in the downtown and suggested it be allowed to be rent-free for a year.

Haugen said he had met with Finance Development. Similar comments were expressed at that meeting on putting together a package with special deals for people who would start a business downtown.

Grasser said the map revision from the Corps of Engineers establishes the floodway on the inside dry toe of the levee. That, along with hydraulic considerations, will create some specific technical challenges for the multi-story building with elevated deck connected to the dike and the pedestrian bridge. These projects should be reviewed by the Corps of Engineers. The last pedestrian bridge discussion had ADA concerns.

Haugen said North Dakota and Minnesota are discussing which of the two bridges they jointly own, the Kennedy and the Sorlie, will be replaced first. When the Sorlie is torn down and replaced, there is little likelihood they will be able to have a shadow construction to keep the road in use because of the way it connects with the flood protection project.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF DISCUSSION OF GUEST HOMES IN THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL ZONES.

Gengler said there had been some talk about providing language in the code for guest homes or accessory dwelling type units within the extra territorial zones. There has been a request for such a dwelling and he wanted to know how the commission felt about allowing such a dwelling. Staff researched options of how this could be allowed and nothing comes close to following code without changing densities and platting rules. After researching how other areas handle it, staff came up with a definition and purpose for a guest home or accessory dwelling unit. Staff will, with the commission’s approval, draft an ordinance for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a guest home or accessory dwelling unit in the extra territorial zone. There will be a deed restriction on the dwelling so it cannot be sold, rented or otherwise used except for the intended purpose.

Discussion continued on the possibility of using such a facility as a mother-in-law home. Gengler said further research would be needed.

Lee asked if square footage is the determining factor for an accessory dwelling. Gengler replied there are various mechanisms used for an accessory dwelling; some are based on square footage and some are based on a percentage of the principal dwelling.

There were no further questions or comments from commission members on the issue.
6-2. MATTER OF DISCUSSION OF TELEVISING PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS.

Gengler suggested the planning and zoning meetings should be televised and said it would be a valuable tool for the commission. Televising the meetings would not take the place of formal notifications for any of the issues, but it is another way to keep people informed and if people are unable to be at the meetings, they can watch it later on television.

Robert Drees stated that people in the surrounding county areas do not have access to the cable channel that televises the council meetings. He wanted to know how they would be able to access the meetings on television. There are so many decisions by the city council and other groups that affect people in the rural areas of the county.

Gengler said he could not answer questions related to the technical aspect. The council meetings are broken down by agenda items and can be accessed through the city’s webpage via computers.

Grasser commented that the Info Center cannot stream a two-hour meeting but the technology changes so quickly, it will be available to do that shortly.

Hutchison asked if there was a cost involved in televising the planning commission meetings. Gengler stated it was budget neutral item. There is already a full-time info staff and no new equipment is necessary.

Matejcek said it was a good idea to televise the planning commission meetings. He agreed with Mr. Drees on the inability to watch it on television in the rural areas, but if the people in the rural areas can get it through the computer, it should be okay. The only drawback is the bright lights.


OTHER ITEMS

Matejcek said the commission has never had an opportunity to view the area for the proposed landfill. The landfill issue is one of the most important decisions the city will make and it will be there forever. He passed out an article from the Philadelphia Enquirer. He asked that the members read the article on what can happen to beautiful property when it surrounded by landfills. There is still time to think about the location because it is not good planning.


Hagness asked about a rezoning request along 24th Avenue South by Bishop Cole for a church. There are rumors that a motel is being considered and neighbors do not want a 35-foot motel but they were not against a church. Will that be on the planning commission agenda soon? Gengler noted that Bishop Cole had been in the office to procure information on the property north of the site for the Springhill Hotel. At the time of the discussion for the Springhill Hotel, the commission discussed the possibility of rezoning the remainder of the property north of the Springhill Hotel but decided to leave it zoned as agricultural property until someone came forward with a request for use of the property. There has been no formal request submitted by Bishop Cole or anyone else for the property. Churches are allowed in any zoning district.


7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:42 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President